SpindleWorks.com - reformed christian resources

Deposed? - Dr. J. De Jong

Copied
with permission from the Clarion
Volume 47, No. 6, March 20, 1998.

Some time ago Prof.
D. Engelsma reviewed the latest publication of our emeritus Prof. Dr. J. Faber
concerning the early Secession theologians in the Protestant Reformed, paper The Standard Bearer.[1] Unfortunately, this review did not really enter into a discussion with the
book, but only brought forward the typical Protestant Reformed themes. For
example, Engelsma makes much of Faber's remarks about W. Heyns, taking them
to reassert their repeated claim that Schilder and Heyns were identical (and
Arminian) in their view of the covenant. At the risk of repetition, I can
mention that Schilder's views were not the same as Heyns and on several points
on the covenant the two men differed markedly. But these doctrinal matters
have been considered more often in previous issues of Clarion. What interested
me in Engelsma's article was the reference to some details of our own church
history. He claims that doctrinal differences between the PRC and the Canadian
Reformed Churches are so great that these two churches could never sail under
one banner. He puts it this way:

The alternative to
judging between the doctrine of an unconditional covenant and the doctrine
of a conditional covenant would be to take the position that the difference
between the two doctrines is insignificant. In this case both are allowed
in the Reformed churches. The PRC do not believe this. They judge the doctrine
of a conditional covenant as defended by Schilder and Faber to be a fundamental
departure from the gospel of salvation by sovereign, particular grace alone.
It is condemned by the Reformed confessions, especially the Canons of Dordt.

Nor, despite their
protestations to the contrary, do the Canadian Reformed Churches and the
GKN ("lib.") think differently about the doctrine confessed by the PRC.
A minister preaching the unconditional covenant with the elect children
alone would not be tolerated in those churches. When the Rev. Herman Veldman
preached the unconditional covenant to people of "liberated" convictions
in a Protestant Reformed
congregation, he lasted less than a year. The congregation put him out.
There is a real and vital theological difference between the two doctrines
of the covenant outlined in the "Declaration" and discussed in American
Secession Theologians.[2]

In other words, we are
here informed that also from the side of the Canadian Reformed there is enough
hostility to the PR view of the covenant that unity between these two federations
on the basis of the Three Forms of Unity would not be possible.

This reminded me of
an earlier article in the Standard Bearer dealing with the events surrounding Rev. H. Veldman, to which Prof. Engelsma
refers. In a memorial article concerning the Rev. Veldman, who died last year,
Rev. Cornelis Hanko writes about his stay in Hamilton:

Rev. Veldman, who
would never shy away from a challenge, weighed this call very seriously.
He even told the congregation at Hamilton that if he were to accept the
call he would most emphatically condemn the Liberated view of the covenant
and of infant baptism and would strongly defend the doctrine of the PR Churches.
They had the opportunity to advise him to decline the call, but they consented
to his coming even after this warning.

During his stay Mrs.
Veldman brought all the immigrants who had no means of transportation to
the church worship services. Their children attended the public school.

There was a group
of 12 to 15 young people who were instructed by Rev. Veldman and came to
the consistory to make public confession of their faith. When Rev. Veldman
pointed out to them that they would be confessing loyalty to the truth as
confessed by the Protestant Reformed Churches the consistory refused to
accept their confession.

A year later it was
very evident that things were not going well in Hamilton. The church visitors
were informed of this. They wondered what they would find upon visiting
this congregation. At the meeting with the church visitors Rev. Veldman
asked the visitors to take over the entire meeting, while he withdrew to
the background. Soon one of the elders requested permission to read a paper
in which he expressed his convictions concerning God's covenant and infant
baptism. He made a strong defense of the teachings of the Liberated churches.

Rev. Hanko then describes
in graphic detail some of the proceedings at the consistory meeting, which
I will not include here, not in the least because in the article we find no
proof concerning the accuracy of his remarks. He continues:

Soon after that the
consistory met privately without the minister, and decided, totally disregarding
the rules of the Church Order, to depose him. When elder Sam Reitsma objected
to this, he also was illegally deposed from office. For a short time the
Veldman family and the Sam Reitsma family held services in the living room
of Rev. Veldman's residence.

Hamilton disbanded
for two reasons. They were not at all in agreement with the Declaration
of Principles and would have left us sooner or later regardless of who had
laboured there. Moreover, they now felt strong enough, numerically and financially
to organize their own Liberated church.

From two sides the message
is clear: Rev. Veldman was illegally deposed. The congregation put him out
(Engelsma). Both elder Reitsma and Rev. Veldman were "illegally deposed from
office," (Hanko). Recalling what brother G. den Bok (Burlington-South) wrote
about the early history of the church of Hamilton, I wondered about these
statements, and became curious as to the exact sequence of events.[3]

Checking the archives
of the consistory in Hamilton, a number of documents were uncovered which
tell a different story.[4]Although
we do not have the actual minutes of the Protestant Reformed Church in Hamilton,
there are two documents which give an verbatim extract from these minutes,
describing the sequence of events. Immigrants who first lived in Hamilton
formed a Protestant Reformed Church in April, 1949, under the leadership of
their "mission ministers," De Jong, DeWolf, Kok and others.
However, some immigrants were led especially by Rev. Hettinga of Holland to
institute liberated churches. The first Canadian Reformed Church was instituted
in Georgetown in 1950. When troubles
began to surface in Hamilton, some of the 'liberated' immigrants went to the
Georgetown church. [5]

The issue dividing the
consistory in the PRC in Hamilton was the admission of immigrants from the
liberated churches. Rev. Veldman's view was that these immigrants could not
be admitted unless they indicated that they were willing to be instructed
in the PRC view of the covenant. One or two other officers held this view,
but the majority of the consistory was in favour of admitting the liberated
immigrants as members.

The consistory decided
to take the matter to classis. The classis supported the minority view. Meanwhile
Rev. Veldman insisted on preaching the supralapsarian view of the covenant,
and continued to do so in Hamilton.

According to the summary
of the minutes of the Protestant Reformed Church at Hamilton, a decision was
made on October 11, 1950 refusing
to accept the decision of Classis East with regard to the admission of members
from the liberated churches. On October 26, 1950 a meeting
was held with the classical committee appointed to investigate the troubles
and the congregation, in which the committee stated that if Hamilton held
to its stand it could no longer function as a congregation within the federation
of the Protestant Reformed Churches.

On November
3, 1950 a decision was made to continue to refuse acceptance of the decision of Classis,
since the doctrine as taught in the Three Forms of Unity is not necessarily
the Protestant Reformed doctrine, and the consistory wished to accept members
who believe and confess what it taught in these forms.

On December
5, 1950 a decision was made regarding the synodical decision of the Protestant Reformed
Churches. The consistory had no specific objections to the content of the
decision, but advised not to make it binding. [6]

At this meeting Rev.
Veldman asked the consistory to request classis to give due consideration
to his position as minister in the congregation in the light of the consistory's
rejection of the classical advice in regard to admitting "liberated" members
to the communion of the church, that is, recognizing their attestations. The
consistory decided to ask classis to release Rev. Veldman, since now that
it had become impossible for him to help execute the decisions of the consistory with regard
to the admission of "liberated" immigrants, further ministerial work in the
congregation was practically impossible.

On the 11th of January
more "liberated" immigrants were admitted as members. The same day the consistory
received notice from Classis East that its request in regard to Rev. Veldman
was rejected. The grounds were that the blame for the problems in the congregation
lay entirely with the consistory. The report of the classical committee regarding
the situation in Hamilton was also approved by classis.

The next day, the consistory,
taking note of the decision of classis, made the following decision: "As long
as Rev. Veldman refuses to execute his official work on the basis as adopted
by the Consistory, it is impossible for him to continue to function in the
ministry of the Word in Hamilton. As long as there is no change in this situation,
he is not permitted the right to use the pulpit."

On January 16, 1951 the consistory
decided no longer to recognize Rev. Veldman and Elder Reitsma as officers
"since cooperation with them is impossible given their behaviour on the previous
Sunday in connection with the suspension of Rev. Veldman." Apparently Rev.
Veldman and elder Reitsma started meeting separately from the congregation
with a few other members.

The consistory then
decided rather than to suspend Rev. Veldman to withdraw from the federation
of the Protestant Reformed Churches since it was clear that the office it
received from Christ could not be executed in this federation. The demonstrative
attitude of Rev. Veldman and Elder Reitsma made it impossible to continue
in the ecclesiastical way, while the churches of the federation did not indicate
any effort to understand the nature of the difficulties. The following note
is added: "This does not mean that from our side we do not want to be Protestant
Reformed, but only implies that we accuse Rev. Veldman and the church federation
of making it impossible for us to pursue our reformational principles within
the church federation, and because the classis maintains the binding character
of the decision re the acceptance of new members." The church took the name:
First Protestant Reformed Church, and was at the time basically independent.

A further stipulation
states that the withdrawal from the federation will remain in effect as long
as the Protestant Reformed Church federation maintains its unscriptural binding.
The consistory is willing to return to the federation as soon as the federation
shows itself willing
to live in accordance with Scripture and confession alone.

One further decision
is to be noted here: on September 6, 1951 the consistory
decides to express apologies to Rev. Veldman and Elder Reitsma in that it
did not deal with them in the brotherly way by its departure from the church
federation, but that it retains the objections that it had to the conduct
(handelwijze, JDJ) upheld by Rev. Veldman.

Meanwhile the group
that had originally met under the auspices of Georgetown instituted a Canadian
Reformed Church in Hamilton on May 20, 1951. A little
more than a year later, on June 13, 1952, these
two churches were united in one Canadian Reformed Church.[7] Also this move to unity was accompanied by many weaknesses, shortcomings and
struggles.[8] But
through it all God established His church through the power of His Spirit!

So much for this brief
extract from the archives in Hamilton. An examination of these records of
the minutes of the Protestant Reformed Church of Hamilton at the time indicates
two things: first, Rev. Veldman was not categorically or illegally deposed,
and most certainly was not deposed because of heresy, or doctrinal deviation.
The documents in Hamilton indicate a two- fold procedure: request for release,
and then, when this was refused, suspension, and this because of a deterioration
in the working relationship. And secondly, there is no indication that the
brothers with the "liberated" perspective on the covenant could not live in
unity with the Protestant Reformed. In fact, there appears to be a willingness
to do the utmost to live together, without making any one view binding on
all parties. The explicit position of the consistory was that although there
was room for the Protestant Reformed interpretation, it was not the only way
the confessions had to be understood. That is why the brothers kept the name:
First Protestant Reformed Church.

I'm sure no one would
assert that from the side of those with "liberated" sentiments there were
no mistakes and faults. Obviously there were errors made, especially when
the brothers discovered that there was not going to be any support from the
federation as a whole. But Engelsma's inference that when push came to shove
unity was not possible according to the Canadian Reformed brothers is disproved
by the documents themselves. The brothers exerted every effort to retain the
unity of faith, but were blocked by the inexorable force of synodical and
classical binding to Protestant Reformed dogma.

With these considerations
we do not mean to assert that attaining lasting unity would have been an easy
road. Obviously there needed to be give and take on both sides, and those
holding a "narrow view" of the covenant (covenant with the elect) would have
been required to moderate their statements from the pulpit, while those with
the broader view would also have needed to be conscious of the opinions of others.[9] In interaction with the
confessions, there is room for unity and growth in understanding.[10] We have not exhausted all aspects
of the Scriptural doctrine of the covenant!

With some give and take,
there is still room for unity today, as long as the basis is clearly confessed,
and one perspective is not made binding over another. We desire unity with
the Protestant Reformed as much as we do with the United Reformed, the Free
Reformed, and all other Reformed churches seeking to confess and to live in
accordance with
the doctrine as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity. Despite all the shortcomings
and weaknesses, the above episode in Hamilton's early history testifies to
a spirit of true ecumenicity that lived among the early immigrants! Let us
hope and pray that with all our weaknesses this spirit will continue to be
cultivated among more and more Reformed people whose hearts are alive to the
call of Christ, and who cherish the love for unity of true faith in their
hearts!

Footnotes

[3] See G. Den Bok "Early History of the Church in Hamilton" Clarion, Vol.
46 #5, (March 7,1997) 105106

[4] My thanks to Dr. A. Witten, vice chairman of Hamilton's consistory, for helping
me in finding my way through these archives.

[5] Brother George Lodder (Guelph) gave an interesting account of these events
in the 1996 year
end issue of Clarion, (Vol. 45, #25) 573-574. This account indicates that
the baptism of the children of the new immigrants was also an issue in the
dispute.

[6] This is a reference to the Declaration of Principles of the Protestant
Reformed Churches, which was first read at Synod 1950. The synod agreed that
if no objections would come forward the statement would be adopted at the
next synod, cf. Acts of Synod 1950, Art. 117, p. 90. The declaration was adopted a year later, see Acts of Synod, 1951, Art. 284, p. 196.

[9] My impression
from brother Den Bok's article is that this was indeed the sentiment among
the "liberated" immigrants in the first meetings in Hamilton.

[10]A
good example of this is Rev. A. Baars statement on "The Appropriation of Salvation,"
recently published in Clarion, a statement which may well reflect a particular
orientation, but is solidly founded on the teaching given in the Three Forms of Unity.

Word and Deed addresses the spiritual and physical needs of people in the developing world in accordance with biblical principles.

Education rooted in a Biblical worldview is pivotal to tranformation and this is what makes EduDeo unique.

Reformed Christian Media is a Internet-based initiative. They produce Christian programming for Ontario which is broadcast in English on the Internet.

An excellent resource for parents to (help) teach the Heidelberg Catechism to their children, for elders who need to read a Catechism sermon in the congregation, for ministers who need to research a Lord’s Day with a view to sermon preparation, etc.

The mission of ARPA Canada is to educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians to political action and to bring a biblical perspective to our civil authorities.

The Canadian Christian Business Federation was formed in February, 1984 by a group of Christian business leaders in Southern Ontario who felt the need to meet regularly for mutual support and encouragement, and to deal with the daily challenges of integrating faith and work.

Please Note:SpindleWorks does not have any official connection to any Reformed Churches or organizations.
Content is the sole responsibility of the site maintainer